9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) adverse effect upon the person's reputation. There is no requirement to give reasons for the revocation so that the person will not know whether he should never have been certified or whether the revocation was for another reason. Re-entry to the United Kingdom would be likely to be opposed by the Secretary of State and the person would, in the absence of a right to appeal to the Commission, be required to challenge the refusal of leave to enter and a decision to exclude by judicial review. There are weighty reasons, it is submitted and I agree, why the statute should be construed, if possible, so as to permit a right of appeal. 144. The impediment is in the provision in Section 25(1) that it is "a suspected international terrorist" who may appeal and a suspected international terrorist is defined in Section 21 as a person certified under the section. Upon the revocation of the certificate the person seeking a hearing before the Commission is no longer a suspected international terrorist. 145. Mr Husain, for the Appellants, has made submissions on the wording of Section 25(1). It refers not to an appeal against a certificate but an appeal against "certification". The right of appeal in Section 25(1) is against the "certification" and not against a subsisting certificate. 146. Moreover, when the Commission is deciding whether to cancel a certificate under Section 25(1), it is entitled, under Section 25(1)(b) to consider whether the certificate should have been issued at all and, if it is cancelled, the certificate shall be treated as never having been issued (Section 21(4)). A retrospective assessment of evidence and a retrospective effect following cancellation is thereby contemplated. Given the presence of that power to consider past events, it is unlikely that the right of appeal is confined as the Commission found. 147. If it had been intended to remove the right of access in such a serious matter, plainer language would have been necessary. While the Section 25(1) appeal might have been expressed to be against the "issue of the certificate" rather than "certification" to put the issue beyond doubt in favour of jurisdiction, I would have expected a word other than "certification" to have been used in Section 25(1) if it had been intended that the appeal could only be against an existing certificate as distinct from the act of certification. It is not necessary to remain within the definition of "suspected international terrorist" to have a right of appeal against certification. I read Section 25(1) as meaning that a person who has been certified as a suspected international terrorist may appeal against that certification. 148. If a right of appeal exists, the grounds in Section 25(2)(a) and (b) can be relied on. I see no reason to make a distinction and limit the right to sub-paragraph (b). If the Commission held otherwise in paragraph 34, that finding was in my view in error. 149. The Commission should have accepted jurisdiction. Other issues 150. On the other issues mentioned in paragraph 4 of this judgment I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Laws LJ in draft and I agree with his conclusions. There is also to be a closed judgment following submissions made in closed session. As Mr Burnett said in open court, it does not impinge on the three general issues considered in this judgment. 151. Save as to jurisdiction in the cases of Ajouaou and F, I would dismiss these appeals. That includes the appeals of Ajouaou and F which the Commission considered in case it was wrong on the question of jurisdiction. LORD JUSTICE LAWS: INTRODUCTORY 152. These appeals are about executive detention without limit of time. The skeleton argument prepared by Mr Emmerson QC and his junior, counsel for all the appellants save C and D, cites this observation by Lord Bingham of Cornhill: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 30/113